AoS Sunblood or Oldblood

[Nielspeterdejong]

So I've been planning ahead, and after I've made my skink army I wanted to build a Saurus one. The idea is that I send in a large warrior party, hope they don't get reduced to below 40 before they engage, and make sure they charge first so that they can soften up the enemy formations.With the rest of my mounted cavalry cleaning up afterwards.

I had the following 2000 points army in mind:

-Bloodclaw starhost, so all heroes can use their commands.
-Oldblood on carnosaur
-Scar veteran on carnosaur
-Scar veteran on cold one
-1 unit of 40 warriors
-1 unit of 5 knights
-1 unit of 10 knights
-Skink priest with area reroll on saves
-skink starpriest for the bite buff, and the -1 on attacks against my warriors
-starseer for the rerolls and the mythic shield on my warriors.

And in addition to that, I wanted to add either a Sunblood or a Oldblood to accompany my 40 warriors. Who of them is better stat and command wise? The sunblood, or the oldblood. I want to make sure I can charge with my warriors first, to soften the enemy up.

 

[Bowser]

My vote is sunblood. Better command ability. Save is better, attacks are better.

 

[InfamousBeany]

Interesting to see an infantry focussed seraphon army, not really seen one thus far.

To answer your original question, oldblood (presumably on foot) or sunblood, normally I would have said Sunblood hands down- great damage output, arguably the best command ability we have, superb force multiplier. However- that huge block of 40 Saurus warriors is going to be incredibly unwieldy, so the Oldblood on foot's command ability could really offer you some flexibility. For example, if part of your unit is stuck in a combat they don't want to be in, you can use Paragon of Order to move those models out of combat range of your opponents. Bearing in mind a large part of your game plan will be to dictate the flow of the combats you engage in, this may be of serious use to you.

Personally, on balance, I still find the Sunblood better. Whereas the Oldblood only really helps your infantry, your Sunblood can help across the board, and makes your killy things even more killy- hard to say no to that!

-- EDIT: Just noticed you can only actually take either the Oldblood on foot OR the Oldblood on Carno for the Bloodclaw Starhost, you cannot take both. I guess that makes the decision even easier! --

Another important point to make- after you have added your oldblood/sunblood, your list has 7 Leaders, which breaks the rules (I myself fell foul of this in my List Emporium Thread- damnable hero limits!). Based on this,may I suggest dropping the standard priest and the starseer for a Slann? His command ability is a slightly limited but more reliable version of your priest, and can cast three times a turn, more than enough to buff the stuff you need. His constellations are also absolutely incredible, as they are a collosal force multiplier for your entire army! This would also mean you can use 5 Command Abilities a turn, so you get to feel like a scaly little Archaon, and give your poor opponent a bit of an inferiority complex.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

Ah

Interesting to see an infantry focussed seraphon army, not really seen one thus far.

To answer your original question, oldblood (presumably on foot) or sunblood, normally I would have said Sunblood hands down- great damage output, arguably the best command ability we have, superb force multiplier. However- that huge block of 40 Saurus warriors is going to be incredibly unwieldy, so the Oldblood on foot's command ability could really offer you some flexibility. For example, if part of your unit is stuck in a combat they don't want to be in, you can use Paragon of Order to move those models out of combat range of your opponents. Bearing in mind a large part of your game plan will be to dictate the flow of the combats you engage in, this may be of serious use to you.

Personally, on balance, I still find the Sunblood better. Whereas the Oldblood only really helps your infantry, your Sunblood can help across the board, and makes your killy things even more killy- hard to say no to that!

-- EDIT: Just noticed you can only actually take either the Oldblood on foot OR the Oldblood on Carno for the Bloodclaw Starhost, you cannot take both. I guess that makes the decision even easier! --

Another important point to make- after you have added your oldblood/sunblood, your list has 7 Leaders, which breaks the rules (I myself fell foul of this in my List Emporium Thread- damnable hero limits!). Based on this,may I suggest dropping the standard priest and the starseer for a Slann? His command ability is a slightly limited but more reliable version of your priest, and can cast three times a turn, more than enough to buff the stuff you need. His constellations are also absolutely incredible, as they are a collosal force multiplier for your entire army! This would also mean you can use 5 Command Abilities a turn, so you get to feel like a scaly little Archaon, and give your poor opponent a bit of an inferiority complex.

Ah, forgot about the hero limit ^^;

But wait, does that mean that my Slann can also use his command? Even though he's not part of the bloodclaw host?

And you'd recommend keeping the starpriest for the bite buff and the defensive buff?

Also, what did you mean with cast 3 times? Doesn't the competetive rules only allow you to cast each spell once?

Also, isn't the slann 260 points? More then the starseer+priest 240 points?

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

In addition to my previous questions: Say I want the Slann instead of the priest and starseer, and I need those 20 points somewhere, could I just remove 2 warriors (so stack of 38 now) which are 20 points? Or will that not be allowed?

 

[InfamousBeany]

Aight, lets answer these questions from the top:

1. Yes, if you read the wording of the Bloodclaw Starhost, you can use all the Heroes' command abilities in that formation even if they are not your general, ergo you can have a separate General with his own command ability.

2. Absolutely, really diverse and can make a massive difference for your big blobs effectiveness.

3. The Slann can cast 3 different spells a turn. So, his unique spell and both generic spells.

4. Darn, you are correct. In that case, maybe remove the priest, the starseer and one unit of 5 knights (total of 360 points removed) and replace with a unit of 10 saurus warriors or 5 saurus guard (100 points) and the Slann (260 points)?

5. No- in Matched play, you pay for units as multiples of their base cost, you cannot break those costs down. So, if you have 34, 39 or 40 warriors, you will have to pay 400 points regardless. Does that make sense? Its late here and my capacity for eloquence is dropping rapidly, let me know if you need anything clarified.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

Alright, that does make sense.

Well in that case, say I take away my priest, won't my warriors die quickly since I've last the reroll on failed saves in melee? Or do you think making sure they attack first, and buffing the unit with mythic shield snd starfall (and hoping you roll succeed for both) will be enough?

Also in order to make them charge first, would you recommend taking the reckless trait for order armies for my general? So I can try and make sure my warriors attack first?

And maybe give phoenix stone as a item to my oldblood on carnosaur to keep him in picque condition?

And in that case, how about 5 extra guards so I can take my Slann closee into the fray and melee attack? He has to move along to give his 10 inch save reroll buff to everyone after all. With a constant hero nearby they'll have a save of 3+, and the Slann does decent damage.

Also, say my sunblood marks a enemy unit, and my warriors roll hit, do I first get to reroll the 1's, and then reroll all failed rolls. And after that do my warriors get to reroll the 1's of those roll again? Basically the rule of 1 lets you only roll once. But after your sunblood's command lets you reroll all failed hits, doesn't it reset?

 

[Bowser]

Also, isn't the slann 260 points? More then the starseer+priest 240 points?

Starseer is 160, Priest is 100. 260 for the Slann.


Amd you can only re roll a die once, so you would lose the reroll 1s in favour of rerolling the misses.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

Alright, thanks!

Also quick question, I bought the Scar veteran on cold one model from Woogity, and I saw his passive here: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-veterancoldone-en.pdf after I rolled 3 attacks with his warpick, I have to roll, and if it's 4 or higher, I can attack 3 more times right? And after those attacks I have to roll a 6, and I can attack a second and last time with 3 attacks?

 

[Bowser]

Not any more. In matched play you only get the first rerolls, the third rule of 1. Nerfed that and the rippers.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

Not any more. In matched play you only get the first rerolls, the third rule of 1. Nerfed that and the rippers.

Alright, so instead of the scar veteran on coldone it's just best to take 5 more guards to put near your slann? They still get 3+ defense because of that, with 11 attacks total with their spears. Plus 5 attacks with their bites.

 

[Bowser]

But then you lose the bloodclaw. Tough choices. But I would still keep the scarvet for the command ability.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

But then you lose the bloodclaw. Tough choices. But I would still keep the scarvet for the command ability.

Woops, I meant for other formations ;p

For the bloodclaw I'm ofcouse keeping him

So basically with my units I move in quickly, buff my warriors, and hope they don't focus fire down my Slann?

 

[Draconder]

Not any more. In matched play you only get the first rerolls, the third rule of 1. Nerfed that and the rippers.

The third rule of 1 only applies to generating extra attacks, hits or wounds, it doesn't talk about re-rolling so you can still be able to have a unit receive a re-roll to hit and to wound by combining the Oldblood's Wrath of the Seraphon and the Sunblood's Scent of Weakness

Edit: Sorry, misread what you were saying to Nielspeterdejong and that you were remarking about the extra attacks.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

The third rule of 1 only applies to generating extra attacks, hits or wounds, it doesn't talk about re-rolling so you can still be able to have a unit receive a re-roll to hit and to wound by combining the Oldblood's Wrath of the Seraphon and the Sunblood's Scent of Weakness

Edit: Sorry, misread what you were saying to Nielspeterdejong and that you were remarking about the extra attacks.

Well as long as one of the buffs is rerolling hits, and the other is rerolling wounds then they can stack yes At least, I believe that say rerolling 1's and rerolling failed rolls for the same thing (like hit) does not stack.

 

[BinaryCat]

I'll chip in and cast my vote for the Sunblood as well. They're much hardier (with ignoring up to -2 rend, instead of just -1), and they've got a great command ability.

I'm sorry in advance for a bit of a wall of text, but I wanted to share my interpretation of the Scar-Vet on Cold One's rule.

Alright, thanks!

Also quick question, I bought the Scar veteran on cold one model from Woogity, and I saw his passive here: https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/AoS_Warscrolls/aos-warscroll-veterancoldone-en.pdf after I rolled 3 attacks with his warpick, I have to roll, and if it's 4 or higher, I can attack 3 more times right? And after those attacks I have to roll a 6, and I can attack a second and last time with 3 attacks?

Not any more. In matched play you only get the first rerolls, the third rule of 1. Nerfed that and the rippers.

I'm not sure the Rule of 1 applies to Scar-vet on Cold One's passive, though. The 3rd Rule of One specifically says that "Any extra attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls gained by the use of an ability cannot themselves generate extra attacks, etc." This limits the ripperdactyls because their passive triggers off any successful attack, granting them a bonus attack - that falls under the 3rd rule of One just fine. The same sort of restriction would apply from, say, the Scar-Vet on Carnosaur's command ability of generating bonus attacks on 6s.

The Scar-Vet on Cold One is a different beast. Pun totally intended. The wording of the Fury of the Seraphon passive is pretty different from other "extra hit" type powers. "After this model has made all War-pick attacks, roll a dice. If the result is 4 or higher, it can attack again with its Pick...etc". The rule of one specifically states that bonus attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls can't generate additional attacks or whatnot, but for the Scar Vet, he just gets a 4+ chance to attack with the Pick again after he's attacked with it (and then a further 6+ chance).

Now, I'll admit at this point it gets a bit fuzzy and I'd appreciate an FAQ on this, but I would say the Fury of the Seraphon rule doesn't generate 'extra attacks' as per the Rule of One. The 4+/6+ is a separate, unrelated roll made between sets of attacks. That 4+/6+ roll isn't itself an attack, hit roll, or wound roll, so it doesn't get affected by the Rule of One. As well, it doesn't give him bonus attacks; it lets him attack again with a weapon he's already used. In more video gamey terms, the Fury passive gives him a chance to reset the cooldown on his War Pick attacks, but it doesn't generate bonus attacks as described in rule 3, and is therefore still functioning as written.

P.S. If there is errata or an FAQ and I've missed which clarifies the issue, please let me know.

 

[Quazicotl]

I'll chip in and cast my vote for the Sunblood as well. They're much hardier (with ignoring up to -2 rend, instead of just -1), and they've got a great command ability.

I'm sorry in advance for a bit of a wall of text, but I wanted to share my interpretation of the Scar-Vet on Cold One's rule.





I'm not sure the Rule of 1 applies to Scar-vet on Cold One's passive, though. The 3rd Rule of One specifically says that "Any extra attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls gained by the use of an ability cannot themselves generate extra attacks, etc." This limits the ripperdactyls because their passive triggers off any successful attack, granting them a bonus attack - that falls under the 3rd rule of One just fine. The same sort of restriction would apply from, say, the Scar-Vet on Carnosaur's command ability of generating bonus attacks on 6s.

The Scar-Vet on Cold One is a different beast. Pun totally intended. The wording of the Fury of the Seraphon passive is pretty different from other "extra hit" type powers. "After this model has made all War-pick attacks, roll a dice. If the result is 4 or higher, it can attack again with its Pick...etc". The rule of one specifically states that bonus attacks, hit rolls, or wound rolls can't generate additional attacks or whatnot, but for the Scar Vet, he just gets a 4+ chance to attack with the Pick again after he's attacked with it (and then a further 6+ chance).

Now, I'll admit at this point it gets a bit fuzzy and I'd appreciate an FAQ on this, but I would say the Fury of the Seraphon rule doesn't generate 'extra attacks' as per the Rule of One. The 4+/6+ is a separate, unrelated roll made between sets of attacks. That 4+/6+ roll isn't itself an attack, hit roll, or wound roll, so it doesn't get affected by the Rule of One. As well, it doesn't give him bonus attacks; it lets him attack again with a weapon he's already used. In more video gamey terms, the Fury passive gives him a chance to reset the cooldown on his War Pick attacks, but it doesn't generate bonus attacks as described in rule 3, and is therefore still functioning as written.

P.S. If there is errata or an FAQ and I've missed which clarifies the issue, please let me know.

I totally agree with this interpretation. The extra attacks are not caused by the fact that you attacked. it is caused by the passive rule.

 

[Bowser]

The 3rd Rule of One: Any extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls gained by the use of an ability cannot themselves generate extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls.

I would love to be wrong here, but the use of the word any extra attacks, and this would in most cases be counted as an extra attack. Might be something you have to discuss with your opponent before going for the third attack. Have not been able to find an FAQ on it as of yet.

 

[Quazicotl]

But then you would still be able to gain the first extra attacks for rolling the 4+. Still not bad.

 

[Nielspeterdejong]

The 3rd Rule of One: Any extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls gained by the use of an ability cannot themselves generate extra attacks, hit rolls or wound rolls.

I would love to be wrong here, but the use of the word any extra attacks, and this would in most cases be counted as an extra attack. Might be something you have to discuss with your opponent before going for the third attack. Have not been able to find an FAQ on it as of yet.

But wait, the extra attacks on a 6 or more aren't caused by extra attacks, they are caused by rolling a 6. Or does that count as being caused by extra attacks as you first have to roll a 4 for those first row of extra attacks?